Palepu Prameela Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

PALEPU PRAMEELA, W/O. PALEPU SRINIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D.NO. 3-5-56, SETTY PALLI VARI STREET, NAIDUPET TOWN AND MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, PIN 52412

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETAIY TO GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PIN 522238.

¶15

NAIDUPET MUNICIPALITY, , REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, NAIDUPET TOWN AND MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, PIN 524126.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction on the part of respondent on petitioners representation along with affidavit cum indemnity dated 31.01.2026 submitted and requested to change the house bearing Door No. 3-5-56 and Assessment No 1153000945 in the name of petitioner and said house property situated at Setty Palli Vari Street in Naidupet Town and

¶18

Mandal of Tiruapti District and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, un Just and Un constitutional and amounts to non-discharge of legal obligation conferred on the part of respondent and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation along with affidavit cum indemnity dated 31.01.2026 submitted and requested to change the house bearing Door No. 3-5-56 and Assessment No: 1153000945 in the name of petitioner and said house property situated at Setty Palli Vari Street in Naidupet Town and Mandal of Tiruapti District, in the interest of Justice in pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.MUCHAKAYALA NARAYANA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO: 14573 OF 2026

¶28

ORDER:-

¶29

This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Respondent No.2 in considering the representation of the Petitioner, dated 31.01.2026 seeking to change the house bearing D.No.3-5-56 and the Assessment No. 1153000945 on the name of the Petitioner.

¶30

The Petitioner is claiming ownership of the property, which was acquired by the Petitioner from her husband, vide Registered Permanent Settlement Deed dated 29.09.2025. It is submitted that the husband of the Petitioner had obtained the said property by way of Will Deed executed by the uncle of the husband of the Petitioner’s husband. It is also submitted that the mutation was effected on the name of Mr. Palepu Raghavaiah and the Petitioner having acquired the property by way of Settlement Deed, submitted a representation seeking mutation of the property on her name.

¶31

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 has placed on record the instructions as received. It is submitted that the representation submitted by the Petitioner is not found in the records or in the Inward Register of the Respondent No.2. It is also stated that the property is mutated in the name of one Mr. Kajeri Sekhar on 25.03.2020, pursuant to his application submitted before the Municipality. The mutation was effected on his name as an unregistered Will, dated 09.02.2016 was submitted and

¶32

registered Sale Deed dated 31.05.2016, which was executed by Mrs. Palepu Parijatha in favour of Mr. Kajeri Sekhar. It is also submitted that the procedure for mutation was followed and that there are civil disputes between the Petitioner and third parties pertaining to the ownership of the subject property.

¶33

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner intends to approach competent civil court to decide the title dispute as advised to the Petitioner.

¶34

With this observation, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. It is left for the Petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of her grievance. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶36

______________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶37

Date: 08.07.2026. KK Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No

Palepu Prameela v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palepu Prameela v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G R K Constructions Vs the State of Ap

P Krishna Reddy, Vs The Municipal Commissioner

M/S Sri Svr Constructions Vs the State of Andhra Pradseh

Vunnam Janardhan Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.v.Satyanarayana Reddy S/o M.Subba Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh represented by

Smt Nollu Lakshmi Kumari W/o Late Rama Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by